RP Spammers Unite to Win North Carolina County Strawpoll

Darla said:
No, I am saying that that is exactly how radical righties and radical libertarians view liberalism.
Click to expand...

That's not how I view liberalism. Though I do disagree with some of the policies, and all policies that group people by race, liberals don't hold a monopoly on those type of things.
 
Cypress said:
I can't say. I haven't read the stuff BAC posted.

I think I can say, IMO, that Ron Paul is part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

Being a slave to "limited government" ideology, limits one's ability to either proactively, or adequatly enforce and/or strenghthen civil rights laws.

Its the civil rights equivalent of the "Let the free markets decide" ideology of the libertarians when it comes to economics.
Click to expand...

Cypress, have you ever had an original thought?

In your life?
 
Damocles said:
It isn't all just "get along", the proposed changes would be to the system, not to remove it. He proposes programs that would work on impoverished rather than pigmentation. The idea being that as long as we continue to focus on pigmentation as a separating factor, even in government, we perpetuate the problem even in an attempt to solve it. He proposes making it a state responsibility, that we can consider... well, libertarian.

As I said, your statements make it clear you seek no understanding, only to attempt to dismiss it without allowing understanding.

Your mind was decided long ago and then closed on this subject so that no other solution can even be considered.
Click to expand...


Human beings are tribal by nature, Damo. It's been that way for tens of thousands of years.

Your never going to have a society free of bias and prejudice, when it comes to differences in gender, skin color, religion, etc.

That's why we have laws. Proclaiming that we can solve this by simply changing what's in our hearts, is a cop out. I actually think its worse than that. I think its a trojan horse, intended to get us back the the "limited goverment" philosphy we had on the eve of the stock market crash in 1929.
 
Cypress said:
Human beings are tribal by nature, Damo. It's been that way for tens of thousands of years.

Your never going to have a society free of bias and prejudice, when it comes to differences in gender, skin color, religion, etc.

That's why we have laws. Proclaiming that we can solve this by simply changing what's in our hearts, is a cop out. I actually think its worse than that. I think its a trojan horse, intended to get us back the the "limited goverment" philosphy we had on the eve of the stock market crash in 1929.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading after the first 3 words. I could predict the rest of your post by that time.
 
Darla said:
He proposes programs that would work on impoverished rather than pigmentation. The idea being that as long as we continue to focus on pigmentation as a separating factor, even in government, we perpetuate the problem even in an attempt to solve it.

So then this statement made my Damo is inoperative, and he proposes shit?
Click to expand...

No, I just said I haven't heard him say anything on the trail. It's not exactly a popular issue in Republican primaries.

Though I have heard him promote ending our current foreign policy as a way to finance needed infrastructure and social programs here at home.
 
Darla said:
He proposes programs that would work on impoverished rather than pigmentation. The idea being that as long as we continue to focus on pigmentation as a separating factor, even in government, we perpetuate the problem even in an attempt to solve it.

So then this statement made my Damo is inoperative, and he proposes shit?
Click to expand...
Yes, sorry about that I was mixing him with another candidate in a different area. He actually proposes no changes, either for or against affirmative action.
 
Cypress said:
Human beings are tribal by nature, Damo. It's been that way for tens of thousands of years.

Your never going to have a society free of bias and prejudice, when it comes to differences in gender, skin color, religion, etc.

That's why we have laws. Proclaiming that we can solve this by simply changing what's in our hearts, is a cop out. I actually think its worse than that. I think its a trojan horse, intended to get us back the the "limited goverment" philosphy we had on the eve of the stock market crash in 1929.
Click to expand...
I believe that this is unnecessarily defeatist and that we can have it if we work smartly writing laws that will make much the same effect without the focus on pigmentation. I think that saying, "We are all cavemen at heart and we will never progress past that." is baseless considering the great strides we have made.

In short I believe that Doctor King's, and apparantly Ron Paul's, dream can become reality.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
There you go again. No, it would be that he doesn't have to agree with them at all to appear on their program.

As Ron Paul said the other day--most of the major networks cheerled the War in Iraq. Does that mean he shouldn't go on television to speak out against the war?

Alan Colmes has racists and conspiracy nuts on his talk show, and he's a Democrat. He also had Ron Paul on his talk show. He also does a television show with Sean Hannity, who doesn't share his views.

Do people really need to agree with each other to appear in various media outlets? You make it seem as if he agrees with any of their bigoted views at all when that's simply not the case.

YouTube Ron Paul for cryin' out loud. The man you're describing is not the man people all over the country are coming to respect for his honesty and integrity.
Click to expand...

I know people who were very impressed with him, I mean pumped, after the first R debate when he stood up to that goon Rudy about the war. These are real liberals, but you know, though they tend to be smarter, not all of us are mental whips like you see on here with the liberals.

So anyway, they had no idea what a libertarian even was, in several cases.

There's no point in me youtubing him Adam, we both know I'm not voting for him even if it ends up he prays to a picture of Malcolm X every night. I do find racism to be even more disgusting than libertarian economics (though not by much), and don't think it should be glossed over, is all.
 
Damocles said:
I believe that this is unnecessarily defeatist and that we can have it if we work smartly writing laws that will make much the same effect without the focus on pigmentation. I think that saying, "We are all cavemen at heart and we will never progress past that." is baseless considering the great strides we have made.
Click to expand...


if we work smartly writing laws that will make much the same effect without the focus on pigmentation

I really don't know what this means, substantively. I have no idea how you right a civil rights law, without taking into account race, gender, creed, etc.

I don't see anything on Ron Pauls website that would pertain to this.

I think its a waste of time to come up with a whole new batch of laws that are "smartly written" in your terminology. It just sounds like more tinkering, when we already know what the problem is.

Does Ron Paul support our federal civil rights laws, or not? Second, will he be an aggressive and forceful advocate in enforcing them? That's all I need to know.
 
Cypress said:
if we work smartly writing laws that will make much the same effect without the focus on pigmentation

I really don't know what this means, substantively. I have no idea how you right a civil rights law, without taking into account race, gender, creed, etc.

I don't see anything on Ron Pauls website that would pertain to this.

I think its a waste of time to come up with a whole new batch of laws that are "smartly written" in your terminology. It just sounds like more tinkering, when we already know what the problem is.

Does Ron Paul support our federal civil rights laws, or not? Second, will he be an aggressive and forceful advocate in enforcing them? That's all I need to know.
Click to expand...
Ron Paul has no stance either for or against them. Must I repeat that? We have progressed past Ron Paul, you made a positive assertion that we will always be inherently racist. I think you are projecting, because I certainly do not believe this.

I then made a differing assertion, and proposed a change to the law so that it wasn't inherently racist.

If you must pretend that we were only talking about R. Paul then your assertions that we will always be racist have no place in this thread.
 
Damocles said:
Ron Paul has no stance either for or against them. Must I repeat that? We have progressed past Ron Paul, you made a positive assertion that we will always be inherently racist. I think you are projecting, because I certainly do not believe this.

I then made a differing assertion, and proposed a change to the law so that it wasn't inherently racist.
Click to expand...

I didn't read every post.

If he has no stance on civil rights, then he's part of the problem, IMO.

There will be racism in this country through the rest of your live, your kids lives, and their grandkids lives. Can it be mitigated and minimized? Yes. Can you eliminate it entirely anywhere in the foreseeable future? Of course not.
 
Cypress said:
I didn't read every post.

If he has no stance on civil rights, then he's part of the problem, IMO.

There will be racism in this country through the rest of your live, your kids lives, and their grandkids lives. Can it be mitigated and minimized? Yes. Can you eliminate it entirely anywhere in the foreseeable future? Of course not.
Click to expand...
Please, first he is all racist, that was shown to be false. Then he proposed taking away civil rights laws, that too was shown to be false. He was "translated" by you and I in differing viewpoints on the same statement. I proposed changes, you present only the same, then say he is part of the problem for not proposing changes?

You are all over the place desperate to dismiss without attempting to understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top